Archive for the ‘truth about global warming’ Category

Merry Christmas Poem – Time for everyone to Wake Up!

December 12, 2008

Editor:

I received the Christmas poem below via an email this morning, and it makes a legitimate point.

The boys at the UN want a ‘One World Government’ and a ‘One World Religion’ – and Christianity is not the one they want. Therefore it must be made to disappear.

Please take a moment to read about the future of religion at the ‘Green Agenda’ or watch the video on my side bar. ‘the UN and the Occult’

Most Christians have no idea what is going on, nor do they understand that their religion is being undermined via the ‘Green Movement’.

The ‘Green Movement’ after all, is not about the environment so much as it is a new religion. That new religion is Pagan-  based on the Earth Goddess Gaia.

Please understand – It’s the UN and its minions that want a “One World Religion’ – not the other religions of the world.

“Politicians of all stripes have sold their souls and they are being collected at the gates of the UN”. R J Stephens

Enjoy the poem and your Christmas!

*Twas the month before Christmas*
*When all through our land,*
*Not a Christian was praying*
*Nor taking a stand.*
*It might hurt people’s feelings, the teachers would say*
* December 25th is just a ‘Holiday’.*
*Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit*
*Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!*
*CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod*
*Something was changing, something quite odd! *
*Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa*
*In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.*
*As Targets were hanging their trees upside down*
* At Lowe’s the word Christmas – was no where to be found.*
*At K-Mart and Staples and Penny’s and Sears*
*You won’t hear the word Christmas; it won’t touch your ears.*
*Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-is-ty*
*Are words that were used to intimidate me.*
*Now20Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen*
*On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!*
*At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter*
*To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.*
*And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith*
* Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace*
*The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded*
*The reason for the season, stopped before it started.*
*So as you celebrate ‘Winter Break’ under your ‘Dream Tree’*
*Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.*
*Choose your words carefully, choose what you say*
*Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS ,
Not Happy Holiday!*

Please, all Christians join together and
Wish everyone you meet during the
Holidays a
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Christ is ‘ The Reason ‘ for the Christ-mas Season!


Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

December 10, 2008

poll results

wind turbines towering over farm

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

Yes (198)
No (840)
Don’t Know (83)

Total votes: 1121

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract

Global Warming is a Scam and it’s Time to Wake Up!

September 24, 2008

Yes folks – global warming is a scam and it’s time to wake up.

In the 2008 Canadian Federal Election you are being asked to vote for your choice of TRAITOR.

Regardless of which party you vote for – you are voting for traitors.

In 2008 you need to vote independent or refrain from casting your vote.

If you vote for any of the main parties you are voting against CANADA.

In essence you have become a traitor.

Same holds true in the USA

After ten long years of unrestrained propaganda has the public accepted the Global Warming Fraud as reality? I hope not.

How many billions of tax dollars were wasted brainwashing the public?

Your tax dollars are being used to screw you over.

Time to wake up!

Editorial by Terrence Corcoran
1998 Financial Post (Canada)
December 26, 1998

The possibility that 98% of Canadians are not in a state of high anxiety over global warming, freaky weather, ozone depletion, pollution and scores of other Green scares must be a teeth-gritting irritation to environmentalists. They have, after all, spent decades fertilizing the idea that we are on the brink of environmental disaster. Ottawa and the provinces have spent billions on the campaign, which includes turning the weather into a propaganda tool and the school system into an indoctrination camp that begins in kindergarten.

The poll is a testament to the good sense of Canadians. Despite relentless scare-mongering by bureaucrats and activists, Canadians remain unwaveringly fixed on a national economic agenda of growth and prosperity rather than on fantastic claims of apocalypse. When David Suzuki says global warming ‘is the most urgent slow-motion catastrophe facing humankind,’ nobody is paying much attention.

Except our politicians. Backed by an army of bureaucrats and researchers, governments are systematically preparing to shut down the engines of economic progress in the name of environmentalism. In Canada, the heart of the stop-growth campaign is Environment Canada, where key bureaucrats dedicated to imposing an environmental agenda on the country have seized control. The focus of their effort is global warming and climate change, which they intend to use as a lever to impose what can only be described as a new economic order.

Environment Canada, therefore, is prepared to act on global warming even if there’s no such thing as global warming. On the strength of phony science, the federal government would still be willing to impose new taxes on energy consumption, cut economic growth, reduce our standard of living, and create bookshelves filled with new regulation governing most facets of the lives of Canadians.

In another statement quoted by the Herald, Ms. Stewart gave another reason for adopting the religion of global warming. ‘Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.’ Here she gets closer to the core motivation of some of the leading global warming activists. Where socialism’s attempt at a global redistribution of wealth ended in economic catastrophe, global warming is being wheeled in as the next new economic crusade.

Consolidating Ms. Stewart’s statements, we reach some horrific conclusions. Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians – and most citizens of the world – would not otherwise accept.

The Maclean’s poll shows Canadians aren’t going along with the government or the claims of environmentalists. If they knew what Ms. Stewart has in store for jobs and living standards, and why, they might take a greater interest.Link

Read the Green Agenda

Climate 'hockey stick' is revived – Global Warming Scam Lives On

September 1, 2008

Editor: There’s been no warming for 10 years and the BBC reported that there won’t be any warming for another10 years.

Next decade ‘may see no warming’

20 years with no warming and now the same dumb fucks at the BBC say it’s getting warmer all the time .

Give it up. Here’s a video from 1958 warning of global warming. I’m still waiting.

Global Warming Video 1958

1922 the ice melted – and then it froze again!

Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean

This whole game is so they can introduce a Carbon Tax. Period!

It’s time the world stood together and told these thieves to get their hands out of our pockets.

Want the truth – read the Green Agenda


By Richard Black

Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Extracting core (BBC)

Ice cores indicated that temperatures now are unusually high

A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 “hockey stick” graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct.

Ten years on from the study that provoked all the ire, Michael Mann’s conclusion is that far from being broken, “the hockey stick is alive and well”.

But, the Penn State University researcher added: “If we want to understand things like El Nino and how it relates to climate change, it’s not enough to know just how anomalously warm the climate is today.

Full load of Bullshit at the BBC

Top ten today – Blowing our tax dollars on wind farms

August 26, 2008
Federal Green Party Candidate,Says – Sor
Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbi
The Problems With On-Grid Wind Power
Wind turbine noise affects health
Wind Turbine Noise Video – Suncor Wind F
The Dangers of Wind Power
Exploding VESTA Wind Turbine in Denmark
Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract
Al Gore: Global warming responsible for
Green Agenda

NASA Discovers 70% Of Global Climate Due To Pacific Ocean Oscillations – Not CO2

July 24, 2008

Editor:
Apr. 25th 2007- Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom stated at a
Club of Rome (Canada ) meeting. “There is no direct link between CO2 emission and climate change”.

How is everyone enjoying the scam so far?

From Strata-Sphere

Well, well. Congress learned something shattering today, which will
have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost
credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the
Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations, not CO2:

One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that
the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century
is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the
last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural
processes at work which have caused most of that warming.

On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that
small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural
climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern
Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of
the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend:
warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed
warming since then.

The gentlemen making this claim is the lead investigator one of NASA’s flagship Earth Observing Observatories (H/T Ice Cap). I have the honor of working on this mission on the periphery (Aqua), it is operated out of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.

I posted on some of these effects yesterday.
What this means is no matter how much you change your CO2 footprint,
how much you try to be CO2 green, no matter how much liberal
governments tax you – you cannot save the planet from its natural
cycles. Remember, the draconian actions being proposed by the Church of
Al Gore/IPCC, which will run into the tens of trillions of dollars and
cripple the world economies, is only meant to reduce today’s CO2 levels
by a fraction.

Say they reduced the CO2 25%. Say the CO2 is the driver for the
remaining 30% of Global Warming (which it cannot be, but let’s just be
only half as ridiculous as the IPCC), then all that effort would only
impact 7.5% of the forces driving the global climate. The other 92.5%
would roll on, impervious to the effort. And since CO2 is not 100% of
the remaining 30% of the equation (more like 10%), a more realistic
expectation is that all the suffering that would go into dropping CO2
levels by 25% would result in a less than 1% change in the forces
driving our climate.

In other words, you might as well light a match to all that money
because it would have no effect, you would be throwing it away on a
fool’s errand.

Must be the week to bust myths, because this means all those efforts
to drive down CO2 emissions are a scientifically proven waste of time.
From Strata-Sphere

Let’s clear the air on carbon taxes-We aren’t 100 per cent sure that human activity is causing global warming

July 4, 2008
Editor:
So, now we aren’t sure. Brilliant, but not surprising.
Here’s another statement by Mr. Suzuki.

Suzuki Says “Sorry, intelligence was never my strong suit.”

Suzuki, like James Hansen, are shills for the UN “New World Order Agenda”.

Both Suzuki and Hansen know “man made global warming” is a scam, and so is the carbon tax.

Both Suzuki and Hansen want people who don’t agree with them thrown in jail. Maybe Suzuki and Hansen are the ones that need a little cooler time.

Read Agenda 21 to understand what is going on.

I admit: we aren’t 100 per cent sure that human activity is causing
global warming. So let’s all go home in our SUVs and join an “axe the
tax” campaign. Come to think of it, we aren’t sure that our houses will
be robbed, flooded, or burned to the ground, so let’s cancel our home
insurance while we’re at it.

After all, the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists will
only admit to being 90 per cent certain that our carbon emissions are
causing global warming on such a scale that we face global catastrophe
if we fail to change our ways. If nine out of 10 doctors said your
child needed an immediate operation, would you wait until all 10
agreed?

James Hansen, a leading climate expert who raised the alarm about
global warming to the U.S. Congress 20 years ago, says he’s 99 percent
sure, but that’s still not 100 percent, so why should we pay more by
way of a carbon tax to address a problem that may not exist?

True, a report prepared by M.K. Jaccard and Associates for the David
Suzuki Foundation titled Pricing Carbon: Saving Green argued
persuasively that a carbon tax is an effective tool for bringing
emissions down, and governments, scientists, and economists around the
world agree, but what if they’re wrong?

Never mind that countries such as Sweden, which implemented a carbon
tax in 1991, have proven such measures are effective and that they
actually produce economic benefits; why should we change if we don’t
have to? Rising gas prices due to global market forces are already
hitting us hard enough; why should we add to the misery?

Consider this: If the industry shills and their followers are right
and global warming is not the threat we think it is, and we act anyway,
the oil will still be there for future use and we’ll also have cleaner
air and greater innovation in green technologies – along with stronger
economies.

If the majority of the world’s climate scientists are right and we fail
to act, we face ecological, social, and economic catastrophe on a scale
beyond anything we’ve experienced in modern times.

Consider also that carbon taxes such as B.C.’s and the one the
federal Liberals have proposed are actually tax shifts. The money
collected from individuals, businesses, and industry will be returned
in the form of cuts to personal and business taxes.

The 2.4 cents a litre increase in gas prices that is one small part of
the B.C. tax is minuscule compared to market increases, and the tax may
help us move away from continued reliance on increasingly scarce and
costly fossil fuels.

Whether it’s called a tax shift, a revenue-neutral tax, or a new
tax, it will get people worked up. No one likes taxes, but we like
roads and schools and hospitals and police services, so we pay them. We
also pay about $90 a tonne to put garbage into landfills, so why are we
so concerned about having to pay to put garbage into the air?

Politicians have two powerful instruments to influence behaviour:
regulation and taxation. In the mindless mantra of anti-taxation
groups, taxes are bad and we should always cut and never increase them.
The ludicrous aspect is that these groups are silent about the enormous
taxpayer subsidies to fossil-fuel and related industries that make
windfall profits while resisting even a small tax hike.

Together with measures such as a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax
can use money from industries that are not energy-efficient to create
economic benefits and incentives for those that that are wiser in their
energy use. The income generated by a carbon tax can be used to cut
income taxes, build more public transit, upgrade trains, develop
renewable-energy sources, and retrofit homes and buildings with
energy-efficient technology.

For 20 years, scientists have warned of the need for urgent action to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Leading economists have shown that the
cost to bring emissions down will be about one per cent of GDP
annually, while the costs incurred if we don’t reduce emissions could
be economically catastrophic.

When politicians, business people, and citizens show leadership by
proposing or implementing solutions to the very real problems facing
the planet (yes, more than 90 per cent certain is as real as it gets in
science), they deserve our support, not mockery and politically
motivated misinformation. Axe the tax, my ass!

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Mussolini had his blackshirts

Mussolini

Hitler had his brownshirts.

hitler

Now we have to deal with the UN greenshirts,
and they are every bit as dangerous.

maurice strong
Maurice Srong

al gore

Al Gore

david suzuki

David Suzuki

Just a few of the front men

Read Agenda 21

Britain’s Climate Madness

July 3, 2008

Absurd and Costly

There is not the faintest chance that 7,000 wind turbines can be constructed in this time, given the construction capacity restrictions and tight timetable. But, even if the turbines

were built, this would not be the end of the matter. Britain would still require a considerable back-up of conventional electricity-generating capacity because the turbines would frequently produce no electricity at all, given the fluctuation in wind speeds. Paul Golby, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, has said that this back-up capacity would have to amount to 90% of the capacity of the wind turbines, if supplies were to be reliable. This would be an absurd, and costly, misallocation of resources, with the extra costs falling on households and businesses. But, costs apart, there is yet another problem. And that is whether the necessary back-up capacity is likely to be available.

The current Government has woefully neglected Britain’s energy infrastructure, and much of Britain’s current electricity-generating capacity is due for closure over the next 10 to 15 years. Most of Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned, and half of Britain’s coal-fired power stations are due to be retired because of the EU’s Large Combustion Power Directive (concerned with controlling emissions of, for example, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides). Under these circumstances, there is a very real risk that there will not be adequate conventional back-up capacity despite the Government’s welcome acceptance of the need for nuclear power (there will inevitably be delays in construction) and the operation of new gas-fired capacity (which, incidentally, makes Britain unduly dependent on imports, as our own supplies are dwindling fast).

The prospect of power cuts is, therefore, all too real. Brutally, the lights could go out, and business and the public services, now so dependent on computers, would suffer. The folly of putting so many eggs in the basket of wind power is the height of irresponsibility.

The EU’s Renewables Directive: Disproportionate Burden

The Government’s ‘dash for wind’ in order to develop a “low-carbon economy” is, of course, part of its climate-change policy of cutting carbon emissions in order to “combat global warming”. Any expansion of nuclear power would also curtail carbon emissions, and, indeed, if one believes that a low-carbon economy is a good idea (perhaps for security reasons as well as ‘saving the planet’), one might ask why not allocate far more resources to nuclear power and far fewer to renewables.

Alas, this would not be permitted under the EU’s 2008 Renewables Directive.(1) Under this Directive, the UK has agreed to meet 15% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Whilst renewables include biomass, solar power, wind, wave/tide, and hydroelectricity, nuclear power is excluded. Insofar as the Renewables Directive is part of the EU’s policy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990, this is perverse to say the least.

Whilst the UK has a 15% renewables target for 2020, just 1.5% of energy consumption was met by permissible renewables in 2006.(2) The UK has committed itself, therefore, to increase its renewables share ten-fold by 2020. With the possible exceptions of Malta and Luxembourg, the UK is faced with by far the greatest challenge in reaching its 2020 target. In addition, the unit costs in the UK are relatively high because Britain lacks access to cheap biomass resources in the electricity and heat sectors, and is placing greater reliance on high cost, expensive electricity technologies, such as wind (mainly) and wave/tidal. By contrast several EU countries are well-placed, including Austria, Finland, and Sweden, as are many of the central and eastern European countries.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that the UK is likely to carry a disproportionate burden of the costs of meeting the EU’s 2020 renewables target. According to a study by Pöyry Energy Consulting, the UK could carry around 20-25% of the total EU costs.(3) Pöyry has estimated that the annual cost in 2020 could be around £150 to £200 per UK household, and the lifetime costs up to 2020 would be £1,800, even as high as £2,800, per UK household. These are significant sums, and they are likely to be under-estimates.

Given my earlier comment that the Government’s plans for 7,000 wind turbines will not be achieved by 2020, there is no chance that we will meet the renewables target. (And, in any case, 7,000 turbines, even if built, are apparently inadequate for Britain to meet the 15% target.) The Government is living in fantasy-land – but it seems hell-bent on pursuing an energy policy which will be costly, will dangerously distort energy policy, and will leave the country vulnerable to black-outs.

The Economic Effects

Even if the lights stay on, it is clear that the Government’s current strategy will lead to higher and less competitive energy prices in Britain, other things being equal. For households, especially low income and pensioner households, this will bite into general living standards. Businesses, especially energy intensive industries, will continue to lose competitiveness and will migrate overseas to, say, India or China. The Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG) estimates that various ‘green measures’ (the Renewables Obligation, the Climate Change Levy, and the costs of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme) already account for a quarter of total energy costs for their members. The situation will surely deteriorate. Britain’s chemicals, cement, and steel industries, to name but three, are likely to shrink, jobs will be lost, and the balance of payments will deteriorate.

Look out, Mr Cameron, or we'll all be in the dark

July 2, 2008

Editor:
This is a good piece, a story that has been told over and over. An important story that most will never see.
The govt. and the media keep playing the global warming game, in order to tax the hell out of the
citizenry. All brought to by the UN via Agenda 21.

By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 29/06/2008

Have your say
Read comments

Since
Gordon Brown on Thursday launched what he called “the greatest
revolution in our energy policy since the advent of nuclear power”,
centred on building thousands of new wind turbines, let us start with a
simple fact.

Nothing conveys the futility of
wind power more vividly than this: that all the electricity generated
by the 2,000 wind turbines already built in Britain is still less than
that produced by a single medium-sized conventional power station.

There
are nearly 50 nuclear, gas or coal-fired power plants in Britain today
each of which produces more electricity in a year than all those 2,000
turbines put together.

advertisement

I
make no apology for returning to this subject because the “£100 billion
green energy strategy” published last week, by what is now laughably
known as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
(BERR), contains not only many smaller deceptions and self-deceptions
but one so great that almost everyone has fallen for it.

The
starting point is the EU’s requirement that, to combat the “threat of
climate change”, we must drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, chiefly
by building thousands more wind turbines.

It is
quite clear from the paper that BERR’s officials know we haven’t the
faintest hope of meeting our EU target in this way. So its
number-crunchers have been working overtime to squeeze down the amount
of energy we source from wind to the lowest figure it thinks can be
made to sound plausible.

Until last week BERR had
been claiming that our EU requirement meant that we must generate 38
per cent of our electricity from renewables, the largest contribution
coming from 11,000 offshore turbines, representing 33 gigawatts (GW) of
capacity. But all this has changed dramatically.

They now talk only about the need to meet 32 per cent of our total EU
renewables target through our methods of electricity generation, with
only 32 per cent of that needing to come from wind – and that, they
say, can be done with a mere 7,000 new offshore and onshore turbines.

However,
our present generating capacity is 76GW. By 2020, on projected demand,
to replace one third of one third of our capacity with wind power would
mean generating an average of 10GW.

And herein
lies the central misconception which bedevils the entire debate.
Because of the wind’s intermittency, turbines generate on average at
less than a third of their capacity. Thus to contribute 10GW would need
30GW of capacity, which would require up to twice as many turbines as
ministers are talking about – needing to be erected at a rate of more
than four every working day between now and 2020.

  • Read more from Christopher Booker
  • In
    practical terms, even if they grossly bend the planning rules (as MPs
    voted for last week), there isn’t the remotest chance that anything
    like this number of turbines could be built in time to meet their
    target.

    For instance, the world only has five of
    the giant barges that can install monster turbines offshore – and for
    more than half the year our weather conditions make installation
    impossible anyway.

    But in addition we should also
    need to build at least 20 new conventional power stations simply to
    provide back-up for all the times when the wind is not blowing – at a
    time when, within seven years, we already stand to lose 40 per cent of
    our existing generating capacity through the closure of almost all our
    ageing nuclear power plants and half our major coal and oil-fired power
    stations (due to the crippling cost of complying with an EU
    anti-pollution directive).

    It is a total mess. The
    reality is that, thanks to the dithering and wishful thinking of our
    politicians, it may already be too late to avert that breakdown of our
    electricity supply which would be one of the most serious disasters
    Britain has ever faced.

    And, ironically, no one
    at present looks more likely to inherit this mess than David Cameron –
    whose only response to last week’ s pie-in-the-sky from Gordon Brown
    was to say that the Government should have been building all those
    useless windmills years ago.

    Warming denial a ‘high crime’ says Nasa chief

    James
    Hansen, the head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),
    is to ask Congress for the chief executives of US energy companies to
    face trial for the “high crime” of denying global warming.

    Since
    his historic speech to Congress in July 1988, Mr Hansen and his close
    ally Al Gore have done more than anyone else to promote the warming
    scare which has since swept the world. Yet this is the man who last
    summer was forced to correct erroneous temperature figures on his
    influential GISS website, to show that the highest recorded US surface
    temperatures were not in the last 10 years, as Hansen claimed, but in
    the 1930s.

    His latest outburst is only one of many
    recent signs of desperation in the warmist lobby, as falling global
    temperatures threaten to undermine the central tenet of their
    orthodoxy.

    Far from continuing to rise in sync
    with CO2 levels, as the theory says they should, temperatures have not
    only been dropping but are now lower than when Hansen and Gore set the
    scare in train in 1988. (For latest graph see the Watts Up With That website.)

    Even fanatical upholders of the dogma are having to admit that warming
    seems “temporarily” to have stopped (along with the sunspot activity
    they try to ignore), although they weakly claim, on no plausible
    evidence, that in 10 years’ time it will somehow return worse than ever.

    keep reading

    Wind Turbines Fail in Ontario

    June 3, 2008

    Ontario has 472 MWs of wind energy and wants to build 1,000s more.

    According to the govt, the wind industry, newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, “that’s enough clean emission free energy to power 141,600 homes”.

    Somehow, probably just an oversight on everyones part, they fail to mention the fact that the numbers are based on peak capacity.

    I checked Sygration (output and capacity numbers for all generation in Ont.) at noon today.

    Remember, 141,600 homes is the number they want you to believe.

    At noon today, the turbines were not producing 472 MWs, they were producing – Drum roll please …………………………………………………………………………………………………

    5MWs

    Enough to power 1500 homes. 1MW = 300 homes

    Question to all the people who think windmills (they’re not really turbines) are such a great idea? What are the other 140,100 homes supposed to do for power. Wait for the wind ?

    The “Greens don’t want to use fossil fuels or nuclear. So they must not want any power.

    So, I’m asking all the “Greenies” to please call their utility and get disconnected from the grid. Don’t wait do it now!

    That will solve several problems.

    1) Remove the need for new generation

    2) Show an immediate reduction in emissions (something that wind energy has never accomplished)

    3) Remove the need to bastardize rural Ontario with wind farms

    Never forget two things

    1) Denmark is a small country of 5.3 million ( about the size of metro Toronto), They have been using wind since the 1970s and they are still heavily dependent on their neighbors for energy.

    2) Germany has the most wind energy, and is held up as an example to follow. Germany is in the process of building 20 plus coal plants.

    The manufacturing sector in Ontario is already starting to flee. The higher the cost of electricity gets the fewer manufacturing jobs there will be.

    That’s a Fact

    What do Al Gore, David Suzuki, Global Warming and the Wind Industry have in common?

    They are all Frauds brought to by the UN

    Do the research